[Marcarc]

I sort of kind of agree, but I guess not really. Currently, if you look at the history of canada militarily (since 1867) it has never been used to defend canada. Neither foes in either wars expressed any interest in attacking canada until we entered the war movement and began supplying arms to 'the other side' and cutting off supplies (mostly) to the axis side. In both world wars canada's government turned into a pure dictatorship with introduction of the war measures act. While canadians bravely died overseas beginning with the boer war, seldom has the cause benefitted canada, unless you buy into the idea that nazi germany was indeed 'trying to take over the world' (there were no real indications as such). That could be debated, however, the facts are that after both wars brave canadian soldiers returned to a government whose main emphasis was combatting the labour movement (meaning them). <br /> <br /> In the years following the war many of our stints with the UN were for purely political reasons. The countries in the security council had a vested interest in places where the UN would be sent. This is a huge issue and I'll not get into it now. My point is that personally I favour the swiss model which has a military for purely defensive reasons. Or Scandinavia which has a policy of armed neutrality. The argument that 'some countries need help' is a huge issue, I'll just state that the most obvious cases of that would stack us up against our neighbour to the south-not a good idea. <br /> <br /> Finally, after knowing the history of canada militarily I would never support a draft under current conditions. With canada's involvement in afghanistan, haiti, and even Iraq I personally believe that terrorism against us is justified. We are aggressors and we are contributing to making peoples lives a living (and dying) hell. We do the same within canada to natives and mexicans (who come and work pretty much as slaves during the harvest season). As sun tzu says, it is impossible to defeat a nation which is in the right unless you kill them all. <br /> <br /> That being said, I'm pretty sure that under NATO rules, and other military organizational structures rules, as well as bill c-68 and others that in the event of full scale terrorist attack I think the US is obliged to send forces to canada. That should really be checked though.<br /> <br /> Finally, if the government of switzerland came and said 'we are going to take over your government and make it like ours' I would be cheering in the streets. That's unlikely to happen, but if our country were truly run by canadians, then I would support, like switzerland, the obligatory training of every man, woman and child in what would be the defense of the greatest nation on earth. Every swiss has a weapon in his home to defend it, and I fully support that. Currently, we have no government worth supporting, let alone dying for.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Asoka] One mistake Canada has been making for years as far as military service goes is that we should bring back drafting as Canadian we know how small an army we have.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Our military is so small, not because people don't join, but because the government cut funding for it in the mid 90's to favour healthcare spending. And because of the military scandal in Somalia, people were OK with that.<br /> <br /> If you drafted people into the military, how would you pay, arm and transport them?<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Asoka]<br /> It's easy to say we'll never get attacked but by helping U.S fight terrorism in Afghanistan we stil have a chance of an attack. Just because we don't help in Iraq doesn't mean we aren't going to be attacked. If we do get attacked we could be in a lot of trouble since our army is so little.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Our army may be small, but so is theirs. 'They' being Al-Queda.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Asoka]<br /> Will U.S help us after turning them down in Iraq? Perhaps,if not we're screwed.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> No, the question would be 'Would the US leave afterwards, or just occupy us like they've been wanting to do since they lost in 1817.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Asoka]<br /> Canada needs to badly bring back drafting and should make it easier to get a big army by allowing anyone without a criminal record to join whether they have a disability or not. Canada should also have a foreigh legion like France does.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> But, that is exactly what the French Foriegn Legion is - a hired gang of thugs and criminals. <br /> <br /> Canada on the other hand has Peace-Enforcers that do much the same thing, but are far more respected world wide.<br />

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] I sort of kind of agree, but I guess not really. Currently, if you look at the history of canada militarily (since 1867) it has never been used to defend canada. Neither foes in either wars expressed any interest in attacking canada until we entered the war movement and began supplying arms to 'the other side' and cutting off supplies (mostly) to the axis side. In both world wars canada's government turned into a pure dictatorship with introduction of the war measures act. While canadians bravely died overseas beginning with the boer war, seldom has the cause benefitted canada, unless you buy into the idea that nazi germany was indeed 'trying to take over the world' (there were no real indications as such). That could be debated, however, the facts are that after both wars brave canadian soldiers returned to a government whose main emphasis was combatting the labour movement (meaning them). <br /> <br /> In the years following the war many of our stints with the UN were for purely political reasons. The countries in the security council had a vested interest in places where the UN would be sent. This is a huge issue and I'll not get into it now. My point is that personally I favour the swiss model which has a military for purely defensive reasons. Or Scandinavia which has a policy of armed neutrality. The argument that 'some countries need help' is a huge issue, I'll just state that the most obvious cases of that would stack us up against our neighbour to the south-not a good idea. <br /> <br /> Finally, after knowing the history of canada militarily I would never support a draft under current conditions. With canada's involvement in afghanistan, haiti, and even Iraq I personally believe that terrorism against us is justified. We are aggressors and we are contributing to making peoples lives a living (and dying) hell. We do the same within canada to natives and mexicans (who come and work pretty much as slaves during the harvest season). As sun tzu says, it is impossible to defeat a nation which is in the right unless you kill them all. <br /> <br /> That being said, I'm pretty sure that under NATO rules, and other military organizational structures rules, as well as bill c-68 and others that in the event of full scale terrorist attack I think the US is obliged to send forces to canada. That should really be checked though.<br /> <br /> Finally, if the government of switzerland came and said 'we are going to take over your government and make it like ours' I would be cheering in the streets. That's unlikely to happen, but if our country were truly run by canadians, then I would support, like switzerland, the obligatory training of every man, woman and child in what would be the defense of the greatest nation on earth. Every swiss has a weapon in his home to defend it, and I fully support that. Currently, we have no government worth supporting, let alone dying for.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Bill-68 is creepy, and must be repealed, but other than that, wishing your own country to be attacked is quite low-brow. It wasn't our choice to send people to Haiti.

[Marcarc]

It wasn't our choice, of course, but it was our freely elected government, I didn't say I 'wish' we were attacked, don't put words in my mouth. I said they are justified. Defense, to my mind, is far more easily justified than aggression (or offense if you prefer). We live in an incredibly free society, relatively speaking, and little attention is paid to the specifics of what our government is doing militarily. There was no discussion in Parliament for example, when forces were sent to Haiti, and the majority government last term laughed off any discussion anybody made about being too involved in Iraq.<br /> <br /> Finally, there is no question that we benefit from the actions of the government, and few people are concerned enough about human rights to ask questions about where they get their food and household products, and homes. So there is no such thing as an 'innocent' middle class here, we all contribute to oppression with our dollars. We are far more guilty than natives or iraqis, etc. Of course nobody wants violence, yet our government inflicts it all the time. Canadians are easily the second most detached people from their political institutions in the 'free' world. Part of that is understandable, but in fact if every canadian made themselves part of the political process, it would be far different.<br /> <br /> And a quick note, health care funding was cut far more than the military, like I said elsewhere, my cousin has a high school education and makes 60 grand in the military. We have no money because our officials want to keep investors happy.

[Guest]

The Military Mistake I know of is the condition of enlistment that there be no recent altercations with the police.<br /> <br /> The option of enlistment as opposed to incarceration should be reinstated as policy .<br /> <br /> Jail does nothing positive, while military service may fail in some cases, the potential is higher than incarceration.<br /> <br /> Dennis Baker

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc]<br /> And a quick note, health care funding was cut far more than the military, like I said elsewhere, my cousin has a high school education and makes 60 grand in the military. We have no money because our officials want to keep investors happy.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/shrinking_military.html<br /> <br /> Canadian Forces since the Second World War<br /> <pre> 1946 1956 1966 1976 1986 1993 2003 Army 158,195 47,573 43,914 N/A N/A N/A 20,696 Navy 18,974 19,116 18,439 N/A N/A N/A 10,221 Air Force 35,523 49,989 45,114 N/A N/A N/A 13,473 Totals 212,692 116,678 107,467 79,738 86,036 79,717 57,863 (includes 13,473 classified as 'other') Reserves 59,698 53,551 N/A 20,600 N/A 30,000 21,787 Military Expenditure (% of GDP) 15% 5.7% 3.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 1.1% Sources: Department of National Defence and Douglas Bland (http://www.queensu.ca/sps/research/res-defence.shtml) </pre><br /> Health Care Spending 1999-2003<br /> <pre> 1993 [...] 2000 2001 2002p 2003p $ millions Health expenditures 40 [...] 97 105 113 121 % of gross domestic product Health expenditures 5.2 [...] 9.1 9.6 9.8 10 </pre><br /> Source: Stats Canada.<br /> <br /> <br /> So from 1993 (After the Somalia affair) to 2003, defense spending was cut in half, and in the same period, Health Care doubled, 5% of GDP to 10%. <br /> <br /> Just like I remember.<br />

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]<br /> And a quick note, health care funding was cut far more than the military, like I said elsewhere, my cousin has a high school education and makes 60 grand in the military. We have no money because our officials want to keep investors happy.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/shrinking_military.html<br /> <br /> Canadian Forces since the Second World War<br /> <pre> 1946 1956 1966 1976 1986 1993 2003<br /> Army 158,195 47,573 43,914 N/A N/A N/A 20,696<br /> Navy 18,974 19,116 18,439 N/A N/A N/A 10,221<br /> Air Force 35,523 49,989 45,114 N/A N/A N/A 13,473<br /> Totals 212,692 116,678 107,467 79,738 86,036 79,717 57,863<br /> (includes 13,473 classified as 'other')<br /> Reserves 59,698 53,551 N/A 20,600 N/A 30,000 21,787<br /> Military<br /> Expenditure<br /> (% of GDP) 15% 5.7% 3.8% 2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 1.1%<br /> Sources: Department of National Defence and Douglas Bland (http://www.queensu.ca/sps/research/res-defence.shtml) <br /> <br /> <br /> </pre><br /> Health Care Spending 1999-2003<br /> <pre><br /> 1993 [...] 2000 2001 2002p 2003p<br /> $ millions<br /> Health expenditures 40 [...] 97 105 113 121<br /> % of gross domestic product<br /> Health expenditures 5.2 [...] 9.1 9.6 9.8 10<br /> <br /> </pre><br /> Source: Stats Canada.<br /> <br /> <br /> So from 1993 (After the Somalia affair) to 2003, defense spending was cut in half, and in the same period, Health Care doubled, 5% of GDP to 10%. <br /> <br /> Just like I remember.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> However, our population has nearly tripled since 1946, so the health spending increases make sense, and healthcare, too has been chopped for the last 20 years.<br /> <br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed]<br /> However, our population has nearly tripled since 1946, so the health spending increases make sense, and healthcare, too has been chopped for the last 20 years.<br /> <br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> That's why I related it back to GDP. GDP also increases as population increases. Healthcare has not been 'chopped', it just has not increased as fast as other sectors, making it a virtual 'chop'. That's the 'unsustainable healthcare' myth.<br /> <br /> Military spending however, has been 'chopped'. Since 1993. Like I said originally. <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

[Marcarc]

Your health care numbers are misleading, since if we are talking about federal programs-which includes the military, then we should compare federal transfer payments to cover health care, which were dropped when combining into the CHST and left to provinces to either make up the difference by cutting other program spending or cutting health care spending-obviously more chose the former. However, I should eat some crow and admit that I didn't check those statistics. I'll admit that up front since realistically once the cold war ended military spending SHOULD drop, and continue to do so. I'll choose health care over military any day of the week.

[z_whalen]

I don't find the idea of a military based solely on defense is realistic or appealing, regardless if it is employed successfully by other countries. What Marcarc does not seem to realize her is that Canada is not Switzerland and what works for them is not necessarily a good idea for us. <br /> <br /> You must recall that Sun Tzu also said the an army cannot succeed when it concentrates only on defense, or vice versa. When a you are threatened, it a sometimes best to seek out that threat and contain it rather than isolating yourself and allowing your enemies to grow and act unchecked. Sun Tzu's Art of War is about the art of balancing offensive and defensive strategies.<br /> <br /> As long as warfare exists in this world, which I believe will be indefinetly, it is imperative that we maintain a balanced and capable military. Failing to do this, we flirt with the end of our existence.

[Asoka]

<b>Our military is so small, not because people don't join, but because the government cut funding for it in the mid 90's to favour healthcare spending. And because of the military scandal in Somalia, people were OK with that.</b><br /> <br /> I believe that our army is so small because people don't want to join,after all if the military really doesn't have much funding to pay their soldiers why are they still accepting people? they're always looking to recruite people.Why don't they just stop accepting any more people to join ? Anyone who passes their aptitude test,physical and health tests are accepted so obviously there is still funding there.<br /> <br /> Don't get me wrong I favour health care over military although I tried to join,but I'm also in favour of having both.We pay more taxes then many other countries and still they can afford a bigger military.<br /> <br /> Yes you're right our gov't cut health care in 90's but not because they favoured it,gov't doesn't give a shit about anyone just like most gov't around the world.<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>If you drafted people into the military, how would you pay, arm and transport them?</b><br /> <br /> Make a deal with another alie country besides states,like sending some trained soldiers to them for a certain price and then part of that money goes to the soldiers.Same type of thing hockey coaches do.After all every country wants a bigger army,then once the military has enough funding of their own there doesn't have to be any more trades.There's away around everything.<br /> <br /> Money buys alot of things,instead of always selling weapons send soldiers.<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Our army may be small, but so is theirs. 'They' being Al-Queda.</b><br /> <br /> True but Al-Queda isn't exactly losing against U.S,biggest military in the world are they now?This isn't your usual kind of war and tons of American soldiers are dieing every freaking day.One reason I believe America was planning on bringing draft back.The war didn't turn out as easy as they thought it would b<br /> No, the question would be.Typical American arragence.<br /> <br /> <b>No, the question would be 'Would the US leave afterwards, or just occupy us like they've been wanting to do since they lost in 1817.</b><br /> <br /> They may not want to help us but they wouldn't occupy us because we're their alies still and they need our business,after all look at all the Mcdonalds and other stuff we buy from them anyways so why bother occupying us.<br /> <br /> <b>But, that is exactly what the French Foriegn Legion is -a hired gang of thugs and criminals.</b><br /> <br /> That's a myth,think about it.They're jobs are legal in France.Besides if you have a serious criminal record you can't sign up.They do criminal checks,they can't track everyone since there people from all over the world joining.I'm considering joining,I have no criminal record.<br /> <br /> <b>Canada on the other hand has Peace-Enforcers that do much the same thing, but are far more respected world wide.</b><br /> <br /> We're more respected because unlike states we don't go around sticking our nose in business that doesn't concern us and go around starting wars like in Iraq and yes also because of our Peace-Enforcers,however we might be even more respected if we manage to improve size of our army and did bring a Canadian Foreign Legion in our country but still keeping our Peace-Enforcers.

[Asoka]

<b>Our military is so small, not because people don't join, but because the government cut funding for it in the mid 90's to favour healthcare spending. And because of the military scandal in Somalia, people were OK with that.</b><br /> <br /> I believe that our army is so small because people don't want to join,after all if the military really doesn't have much funding to pay their soldiers why are they still accepting people? they're always looking to recruite people.Why don't they just stop accepting any more people to join ? Anyone who passes their aptitude test,physical and health tests are accepted so obviously there is still funding there.<br /> <br /> Don't get me wrong I favour health care over military although I tried to join,but I'm also in favour of having both.We pay more taxes then many other countries and still they can afford a bigger military.<br /> <br /> Yes you're right our gov't cut health care in 90's but not because they favoured it,gov't doesn't give a shit about anyone just like most gov't around the world.<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>If you drafted people into the military, how would you pay, arm and transport them?</b><br /> <br /> Make a deal with another alie country besides states,like sending some trained soldiers to them for a certain price and then part of that money goes to the soldiers.Same type of thing hockey coaches do.After all every country wants a bigger army,then once the military has enough funding of their own there doesn't have to be any more trades.There's away around everything.<br /> <br /> Money buys alot of things,instead of always selling weapons send soldiers.<br /> <br /> <br /> <b>Our army may be small, but so is theirs. 'They' being Al-Queda.</b><br /> <br /> True but Al-Queda isn't exactly losing against U.S,biggest military in the world are they now?This isn't your usual kind of war and tons of American soldiers are dieing every freaking day.One reason I believe America was planning on bringing draft back.The war didn't turn out as easy as they thought it would b<br /> No, the question would be.Typical American arragence.<br /> <br /> <b>No, the question would be 'Would the US leave afterwards, or just occupy us like they've been wanting to do since they lost in 1817.</b><br /> <br /> They may not want to help us but they wouldn't occupy us because we're their alies still and they need our business,after all look at all the Mcdonalds and other stuff we buy from them anyways so why bother occupying us.<br /> <br /> <b>But, that is exactly what the French Foriegn Legion is -a hired gang of thugs and criminals.</b><br /> <br /> That's a myth,think about it.They're jobs are legal in France.Besides if you have a serious criminal record you can't sign up.They do criminal checks,they can't track everyone since there people from all over the world joining.I'm considering joining,I have no criminal record.<br /> <br /> <b>Canada on the other hand has Peace-Enforcers that do much the same thing, but are far more respected world wide.</b><br /> <br /> We're more respected because unlike states we don't go around sticking our nose in business that doesn't concern us and go around starting wars like in Iraq and yes also because of our Peace-Enforcers,however we might be even more respected if we manage to improve size of our army and did bring a Canadian Foreign Legion in our country but still keeping our Peace-Enforcers.

[Stymiest]

why in the hell would you ever want conscription?????? Conscripts are poor soldiers and are a poor substitute for professional soldiers. Why would the government waste billions of dollars on conscripts anyways when they could up the number of "Professional" soldiers and give our amry new equipment <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'>

[Marcarc]

Obviously people think I'm retarded if I don't realize that Canada isn't Switzerland. Really? No kidding?! Apart from your say so I'm yet to hear any reason why canadians shouldn't be running their own country, why there shouldn't be citizen's initiatives, referenda, etc. There is no end to the griping here about what the government does, yet that's where it ends. Of course, I know from research that that is not the norm, otherwise I wouldn't be running as a DD candidate. If I thought canadians really were the gutless wonders the americans think we are, with a government which makes all our decisions for us while we nod and politely ask for another then I wouldn't bother. <br /> <br /> However, the issue is that canadians aren't like you, do your research. Every referenda held in canada has been embraced enthusiastically. Every poll has shown that canadians want more power and more referenda, in BC it was around 90%. This is incredible in a nation where barely over half even bother to vote federally. Canada is not like Switzerland because we are not allowed to be, because the small group at the top doesn't want us to be and their propaganda machine tells us that we're so much better off. Canadians though, do prefer it. Look at what goes on in Switzerland and tell me 'why it isn't good for Canada'. I would LOVE to know, because I HATE politics and would happily give it up. <br /> <br /> As for the comments on defense, I have the vague feeling that you aren't a member of the military and so won't be asked to die for american globalism (which are generally the cases recently) so it's pretty easy to ask other people to die for what you think may be the case. Do a study on humanitarian aid sometime, the countries that 'benefit' from them held a meeting five years ago in Columbia where they lobbied against the humanitarian aid of the west because it is imperialism in another guise. The debate has never been had on here about the imperialism of the canadian military, both in the UN and Nato, a case could be made for both. <br /> <br /> Before I would support more money for the military (and there are conditions under which I would) the bureaucracy would have to be opened up. Companies would be forced to provide equipment at cost (since most are paid by subsidies anyway), and information on costs and structure be made available (which it isn't, so cutting a cheque is like giving the feds more gas tax and thinking it's going to go to fix the roads). I think those are fair and reasonable requests in a free and democratic nation where we are paying the bill. However, if somebody can tell me how to go about getting that without direct democracy I'd be interested in hearing.

[Stymiest]

Germany didn;t invade switzerland because it wasn't tactically necessary. Germany had switzerland surrounded and could basically do as it pleased so why get caught up in a protracted guerilla war in the middle of the swiss alps when you can basically make it a no factor anyways. Germany didn't have to invade switzerland to conquer it it had already conquered it by surrounding it.